Don't worry I'm not an expert on motoGP either, but used to dig it back in the day together with F1, never was a huge follower tho. Valentino Rossi in fact was kinda an exception at the time, since he is slender but around 180 cm tall, so he was able to go up to 500cc and be competitive. Immediately before him, there was another italian, Max Biaggi, shorter than him and in fact said himself that he had to train hard to handle those bikes. He managed to win the title at 500cc, then one day he did a wheelie on the last bit of a GP to celebrate his win, lost control and almost flipped 180°. Managed to get both wheels on the ground and end the race, but that was the end of his top flight career. Poor dude saw the reaper in the face lol. So equipment matters waaay more than it's credited for. In motor sports it's more apparent, but in football it's no less determining. And that's what I want to post as soon as I have the damn time. About football, of course it's not you thinking Schlosser or Friedenreich were better than Puskas and Pele, I was referring to generic possible random "testimonies" and in general to their positioning in pre-WWII or all-time rankings. I got answers on Youtube like "Friedenreich invented the short dribble and the curled shot", yeah sure. Billy Mosforth was famous for scoring curled shots from next the corner flag (not on corner kick, which wouldn't be allowed until 1923) back in the 1870-80s, not to mention other specialists even among half-backs like Ernest Needham. And the dribbling is literally what gives birth to football lol, called "the dribbling game" as opposed to the Rugby game. Already by the late 1800s-early 1900s it was referred to as "a lost art" in England, with few exponents remaining. Like Leonidas inventing the overhead kick. Apart that in the video of Italy-Spain 1-1 1934, an overhead kick by Meazza can be seen going inches from Zamora's goal, but as I posted recently, the first overhead goal in an international dates back to 1872, by MacKinnon (I attach the drawing of that precise goal because it's cool). It's this kind of fairytale-esque narrative that, albeit romantic, makes a joke of pre-TV era players and football, transforming them either into mystical omnipotent figures or folkloristic non-athletes not to be taken seriously. While they were basically contemporaries of those that came immediately after them, and immediately before them. Tv or not, the parameters to evaluate players and to establish the best have never changed, it's not some shamanic divination. By the way, a few days ago was Iniesta's 41st birthday...and with it came Messi and other greats saying that "there's no midfielder as good as him today" (and we're definitely not talking about a powerful athlete are we?)...watch out cause Iniesta (1984) is 19 years older than Bellingham (2003)...roughly the same difference as between, say, Pele and Maradona, Matthews and Sivori, Di Stefano/Puskas and Cruyff, Baggio and Messi, Platini and Ronaldo...and a little more than between Meazza and Schiaffino/Di Stefano/Puskas/Kubala/Didì/ same as Yashin (15, 16, 17, 18, 19 years respectively). Give it 3 years, not even 5: you'll get young people saying that "Football today is way faster more tactical etc etc, Iniesta today couldn't play etc etc" mark my words lol.
Maybe, as sometimes happens, the second viewing can start to give a slightly different perception (or leave a bit more room for it - it's easy to go too much the other way though maybe if not careful...but overall I do think anyway that the length of the clip and the shortness of each phase of play shown makes it hard to get a full idea because we don't know what led up to each sequence or where the ball ends up sometimes either). There are a few passing sequences or composed bits of play, and the Aston Villa left winger seems quite sharp and tricky, but the most promising play may be from Buchan I think I did identify probably, from around 1:37 (it seems he or his team may have retained possession after his contribution too I'm thinking, though it's hard to be certain - it wouldn't be his throw in so no other reason for him to continue running with purpose unless he's closing down a Villa player who now has the ball I suppose, but I'd guess not - what is probable is that in 2025 he may have gone to ground and/or been given a free kick for the Villa challenge he evaded I guess, as an aside - probably not in a game with me and my mates in 1997 or some Sunday League game I was half-watching while playing with a mate or mates on a smaller pitch in 1991 or something though! - I don't see enough at first glance of second viewing as it were to totally flip my previous ideas/comments anyway, but could feel a bit more open to amending them so to some extent potentially, especially re: Buchan - it's possible I guess though that he is the one who does mis-connect with a volley as it's in the inside right area in the 2nd half, but anyway that could happen in modern professional football even, with good attacking players, even if making a better shot or just taking the ball down could be well feasible too...and not just for a Marco van Basten!) So now on the subject of British advantage over others I could be inclined to think quality of play could play some part in it too at least (albeit the approach would have become more direct compared to the G.O Smith days), even though surely the intensity of play and being able to maintain fitness in games etc would be significant factors too (plus organisation etc I guess - probably the foreign defences struggled to cope with the forays of attacks and speed of play the British teams would put together I guess in that era).
The style of play in the 1910 FA Cup Final was probably not totally kick and rush (modern terminology: hoofball) I guess either, given the guy that contributed to Arthur Rowe developing push and run (modern terminology: pass and move) was playing in it: Peter McWilliam - Wikipedia (But his page indicates he was an outlier in playing with that approach in his era I suppose too, albeit he had been influenced by the playing approach of Scottish players of earlier times, as was Jimmy Hogan seemingly). What I'm unsure of in this report for England-Hungary in 1936 is whether by the 'old days' the reporter would be referring to 1920s England teams (the era which Billy Walker seemed to be fond of) or to significantly older England teams going back to G.O Smith's days and suchlike (I don't know how old he would have been) England Match No. 207 - Hungary - 2 December 1936 - Match Summary and Report EDIT - I had forgotten that there were a few moments of Danish attacking play (including a goal) shown on the 1912 Olympics Final video actually. But watching that video again still gives me more of a 'Sunday League' impression rather than 'Premier League' overall anyway, including various pieces of British attacking play (not to say similar could never happen in the Premier League, but I mean the overall impression). 1912 Olympics - Football final (Great Britain - Denmark 4:2)
Sorry, I made a reply about overhead attempts here, thinking CP had posted on this thread at first glance (maybe good to copy over his own pre-1945 players summary as well as my post anyway): https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-9#post-42979359 https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-9#post-42979366 "Re: overhead attempts by the way I have seen a nice one at 6:24 here for sure, which was on it's way to the top corner (not a bicycle kick, but an overhead nevertheless), albeit I don't really see much great play in general in the video from the 1921 FA Cup Final: Wolves v Tottenham Hotspur, FA Cup Final, 23rd April 1921"
Some comments: – Probably Denmark had the better goalkeeper in that 1912 final, I noticed, looking at the footage again. Match report 1936: Interesting to read the match report from that England–Hungary-game (I had not taken the time to read that one before – just seen the result and lineups). Sounds like a good example of effective football beating 'fancy' football (but also a type of football destined to be superior at some point, I guess could be said). Two years later Scotland beat Hungary 3–1, though, ("Hungary clever but punchless") and apparently had 'Hungary in their pockets from start, but did not turn all-round advantage into a fitting number of goals'. Hungary's "namby-pamby play" did not scare the Scots – but Matthews seem to have, btw. Scotland even played 10 against 11 for whole of second half after Black at inside left got injured. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=okVAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wIQMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3642,1144994 (Glasgow Herald, 8 Dec. 1938). --------------- – Seeler had some goalmaking skills as well, if I remember my impressions of him correctly. – No clarification needed probably, but Joaquín a better 'version' of Matthews for me. --------------- I mean better team about Chapman vs. Walker's. Looking at national caps: Hardy 21 vs. Sutcliffe 5 — Crompton 41 vs. Spencer 6 – Pennington 25 vs. Oakley 16 (& amateur) –— Warren 22+2 goals vs. 'Harry' Johnson 6+1 – Roberts 3+0 vs. Wedlock 26+2 (but we know this difference is misleading) – Needham (x2) 16+3 –— Simpson (x2) 8+1 – Bloomer (x2) 23+28 goals – Shepherd 2+2 vs. Smith 20+11. Holley 10+8 vs. Foster 0+0 (amateur & mostly known as a cricketer) – Spiksley 7+7 vs. Plant 1+0. Total: 178+51 Chapman vs. 127+46 Walker. Chapman's team is in general more modern/recent too. But I guess you were thinking about Billy Walker's team. That one is clearly stronger than Chapman's pre 1920 English XI. Hardy – Crompton, Pennington – J. Gibson, Barson, McMullan – Matthews, Doherty, Gallacher, A. James, Morton. Forward line is the big difference. ------------------ Re: England–Italy 1934. Headline from Jørgen Juve: England better than the World Champions. A section in article: [...] In particular, team play [Italy] was missed. All players wanted to perform all things individually and the team cohesion was poor. The worst, however, was that the guests resorted to dirty tricks, 'leg hooks', etc. This resulted in the Englishmen backing away. Hapgood, Bastin, and Drake all got injured, and their misfortune became a warning to the others. Ones proceeded more cautiously in the second half and therefore the Italians also came to dominate in a completely different way than before the break. The play was not approximately as beautiful as in the beginning of the gigantic match, but the pace and excitement certainly lasted well and sufficiently. Meazza reduced the score, as mentioned, in the 10th and 12th minute [of second half. But it's 58th/59th & 62nd minute]. He scored this last goal perfectly on a free kick from Ferrari. After their two goals, the Italians noted a series of quick attacks and one must acknowledge that with a little luck it could have been 3—3, but in that case, it would have been unfair. England had played such brilliant football before the break that they should have had 5 goals instead of 3. Some reactions: HUGO MEISL: A wonderful performance from the Italians, that they with 10 man could reduce England's 3–0 to 3—2. Everyone knows what Monti means for Italy. I don't think my Austrians could have done it better. REGINALD G. RUDD: "Dirty game". Barker was best on the English team. Our players retreated after they had suffered 3 injuries. Dr. OTTO NERZ: 5—2 to England would have been the most fair result. England's play in the first half was brilliant, in the second half poor football was played by both teams. Italy's performance must be regarded as excellent, though. Dr. W. DIEM: The greatest match I have seen. Fun if we could get the Englishmen over to the 1936 Olympics. It would be wonderful advertisement. ARTHUR GRIMSDELL ([ex-] Tottenham): Copping was best on the English team. With [George] Hunt in center I am sure we would have won big after the first half an hour's superior play. The referee [Swede Otto Olsson] didn't see all the Italian tricks, but one can excuse him for that. [George] MALE, England's right back: Speed wasn't missed, but the Italians played so openly unfair that we almost resigned in the second half. Football should be football and nothing else. We got 3 players injured, Hapgood, Drake and Bastin, and that could be enough for today. Tidens Tegn, 14.11.1934.
I gave a rep again mate for the effort, even if there will still be a mix of agree/disagree (or same/different perspective might be a better way to put it). Trying to keep it brief (so no need to mention Matthews/Joqauin extensively maybe - I would say that on first viewing, which would have been vs Hungary 1953 in terms of extensive footage, I did think of Matthews as 'old-fashioned' despite playing well for sure, but yeah we continue to deviate a bit on old vs new, even with the possible 1910s exception - not to forget I noticed the promising Buchan moment for example and would say too that the balls were different, the offside rules were way different, and I'd acknowledge the defences seemed to be alert and adept at reacting to the balls through by the looks of it, which perhaps was part of the advantage British teams had at that point I guess too - maybe the offside rule favours defenders with through balls at that point, and certainly if there are balls being hoofed forwards rather than being played skillfully the forwards would have a hard time using them...and if the defenders only look to play balls away rather than taking them down and playing them to team-mates then the defensive part of the job is easier I suppose too). Seeler I did notice could pass the ball well myself. I'm not sure I would estimate him to be much less than a Shearer for example, but yeah it becomes small margins when we get to top 200-300 players I guess we'd all agree anyway (and in that comparison Shearer is the more modern player - maybe you wouldn't see him as less than Seeler in literal terms yourself though, I guess, but seemingly might see Greaves that way now - I kind of lean to Greaves better than Shearer in literal terms but it is difficult to be sure I know anyway, and they clearly had differing exceptional and effective qualities). I meant Bobby Walker's XI, but the emphasis should have been on could think it was better (potentially/theoretically), or more specifically could think a Smith was better than a Shepherd if I take a guesstimate. The 'namby-pamby' comment maybe annoys me a bit lol, but I remember posting this, possibly alluding to having seen a report about the pitch being bad for Hungary's game (unless I got the games mixed up): https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...igsoccer-users.2119696/page-106#post-42806269 Maybe Scotland themselves played significantly less ground football in those days than they used to I guess (their game inspired Hogan's ideas I believe). Tommy Walker was regarded as a very good player I know though, and not only with dribbling I guess (he scores a volleyed shot that I saw briefly, vs England, I noticed for example).
Not a volley actually sorry, but a drive from the edge of the box: I posted a longer video for that game earlier re: Matthews I think didn't I, but had noticed that one too already anyway.
Yeah, the change in offside rule in 1925 must have opened up the possibility to go more direct and being successful with such a style – but also through balls much more dangerous, yeah. Pitch is described as "heavy, greasy turf", so that's something to bear in mind, yeah. Glasgow Herald could have given Hungary some 'benefit of doubt' about that. It must have been this game you thought about with bad pitch, yes (re: Scotland–Czechoslovakia 5–0 in 1937 comments.) I could not find any mention of pitch being below standard in Czechoslovakia game in Glasgow Herald – it's said Czechoslovakia deserved a goal or two, though. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nz5AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4490,1664213 (Glasgow Herald 9 Dec. 1937). Some more on the England–Italy game in 1934, having read some more reports: But first a very minor error: the digital library said the 'Tidens Tegn' newpaper was Wednesday 14.11, which I wrote, but on the newpaper it clearly says Thursday 15.11. According to Juve it was inside left Ferrari who went down to CH after Monti left pitch, in another report it says Ferraris went to CH from RH, and Serantoni went from inside right to right half – which seem the most likely for me. Most reports have some errors in it, but reading a few usually corrects those. 'Famous football expert' Frank Colers confirm this too now, I see, writing for Aftenposten. He also says Ferrari was Italy's best forward. Ceresoli in Italian goal gets a lot of praise in many reports. Game was played at Highbury, some criticism of that since Wembley could take 25 000 more. But it was a midweek game and 'only' 51 000 showed up, in a stadium with capacity of about 70 000.
I don't know where I saw a reference to Meazza playing like CH and CF combined in 1934 now, but I think it was via the British newspaper archive site probably. He seemed more mentioned than Ferrari in reports I saw though overall I think (but perhaps it was that he dropped deep and advanced but wasn't strictly doubling as centre half and centre forward as such?). The reference to Pozzo saying Italy would win with a fully fit Meazza was on an Italian-based page with various quotes about the match in 1933, but I can't even find that again right now (maybe it's harder to search for me with it being an Italian-language page I translated).
On that yeah for sure, both things (and in general more goals resulting). Before that the attackers would have to play from in front of defences more I suppose, with short passes, dribbles, and latching onto some of the longer punts that were played by the teams with a direct style. A through ball wasn't illegal, but when two defenders plus goalkeeper must be behind (not level with) the receiving player (and there were no active/passive rules: offside was offside as long as the linesman sees it) it is a less likely route to chances. The Dixie Dean header at 9:03 here (good example of his famed ability with headers I guess) would be offside with pre-1925 rules I would expect, so yeah players couldn't pull into advanced positions so readily with the older rules (or stand against the single last defender for example also): The older formations did have 5 forwards in essence, but not ones able to play on the last line of defence. I'm pretty sure I identified Buchan correctly in that 1913 clip though, and therefore it's notable that at that moment he was playing out from the edge of his own box (as inside right).
That's fine, I trust you on that Pozzo-Meazza quote, it's just an opinion anyway. Would be interesting to see the reference about Meazza in 1934, though. But not so important if it's probably behind a paywall. I guess it would be more accurate to say he doubled as CF and inside right, though, since Serantoni had left that position vacated. Meazza is just described, twice, as a CF in Frank Colers' report in Aftenposten. "Brook fully justified his selection. However, the halfbacks were most important when judging the English game as a whole. Britton and Copping fed their forwards in a brilliant way, and I am sure that Barker has never played better in his life. What would have happened if Monti had been able to complete the match, is not worthwhile philosophizing over. It is clear that his absence was a great handicap for Italy. Ceresoli, their goalkeeper, was a hero, and Attilio Ferraris, their substitute center-half, was also an excellent defender. Italy also had a fine center-forward in Meazza, and in Guaita a goal scorer of uncommon quality. The best of their forwards, however, was inside left Ferrari." Juve says Meazza played high up in pitch: "The players one first and foremost must mention among the Italians are Orsi and Terazcali [(?) – Ceresoli]. The goalkeeper became incredibly popular, which one can hardly say about the others in the team, as the Englishmen is not particularly fond of what they themselves call 'dirty game'. The fullbacks were unrefined, but fast, but they never went forward. The halfbacks' testimony will not be good. I think, plainly put, they were bad. In the forward line, Meazza stayed far up front and he was played to with long balls, but he wasn't able to achieve much, apart from scoring two goals, of course. Outside left Orsi was always dangerous and he truly justified his reputation as a first-class winger. All in all, one must say that it was well done by the 4-man strong attacking line to keep the play up as they did after the break. It's not easy to play with 10 men against England's strong 11" But Juve's report is not completely reliable for me, to be honest. He gets many small details wrong, and mixing up some names. ------------ I would think using the wingers to get crosses inside box to great headers, like Dean, or Kocsis to name another, was even more clearly the most effective way to score goals with the old offside rule (the winger would have to make sure to be in front of striker when making the cross under old offside rule, though, of course). And yes, much more goals: went from 1 192 (2.58 per match) in First Division 1924–25 to 1 703 (3.69 per match) 1925–26. Peak was reached in 1930–31 season with 1 823 goals scored in First Division/3.95 per game – the highest since the early days of Football League. Yeah at 1:40, that is pretty clear for me must be Buchan. Buchan usually played inside right anyway, though – like Bloomer for example too. But you have classic CFs in that time too, like John Campbell at Sunderland 1890s, and Shepherd at Bolton/Newcastle 1900s. Gilbert Smith the most famous withdrawn CF – probably John Goodall, at times, the only other option I could think of, so not very hard competition for that title. The guy with a moustache must be Charlie Thomson, and the Villa player talking to him when down injured at 3:40 must be Joe Bache. At 1:33 it's also Bache, I think. Bache was an inside forward, but that season he played outside left. Didn't remember it was that season, but I knew he did play outside one season. There is a Villa player saving a ball on goal line at 4:29. I don't know, but I guess it's right back Tom Lyons. The volley attempt at 4:13 is well spotted btw, not 100% sure it's Buchan, though, but seem likely based on positions. ------------ About you point table in post 187: I would rank Matthews and Sindelar ahead of Meazza, so based on three opinions the top three pre-war players would be those (no change), but Meazza would go down to third. Sindelar first and Matthews second (Alex James could be undervalued though, considering so many named him as best player). If counting whole careers; probably switch Sindelar and Matthews around – at least in terms of greatness.
Yes, wing play could be a good route with pre-1925 offside rules (also for cut-backs I guess - the 'educated' retro report about the 1913 FA Cup Final refers to rushes following centres although referring to Wallace on the right, but yeah I think it is Bache on Villa's left wing with a few moments featured in the video) Sunderland and Aston Villa - the two best sides in England do battle in the 1913 FA Cup final - Roker Report Dean got his record goal tally after the offside rule change of course, but yeah as long as the winger got ahead of him then he could score with headers before that too fairly regularly I guess (but not so much from deeper centres from further back, or by positioning himself so far forwards I suppose). EDIT - It doesn't seem possible to search the British newspaper archives right now at all, without an active subscription (previously a search could be done, but to fully open the results page by page the subscription was necessary).
I thought I could make a pre-war XI based on your point table too, but it was too late to edit it in to my previous post, so I can finish with this post. Pre-war XI: Zamora – Nasazzi, Hapgood – Andrade, Sárosi, Orth – Matthews, Meazza, Šindelář, Moreno, Bastin I probably cheated a little bit giving so many points from myself to Bastin that he would reach Orsi – but if only ranking pre-war players it could maybe be possible. And my personal best pre-war XI: Olivieri – Male, Cullis, Hapgood – Shankly, Mercer – Matthews, Šindelář, Lawton, Moreno, Bastin. I have ranked Bican ahead of Lawton before, but Lawton's aerial threat made me choose him for this team. ----------------- I made a small mistake earlier btw; Foster got five caps for England + two goals. Not 0+0 as I originally wrote.
Re: Foster I retrieved this excerpt that CristianoPuskas had found in one of the old football history books: "Cobbold was not the last of the dribblers, for he passed on the tradition to the younger generation of the Corinthians, and R. E. Foster in particular was a magnificent exponent of the art" I can see that you are inclined indeed to the more modern players, and rating England's 1930s team highly in general. Maybe moreso than even you would in recent times (though with the same tendency), as I guess you don't necessarily have for example Modric, Mbappe, Lewandowski in a 'best of all-time' or 'best of last 20 years' XI with Yamal on the cusp of entry to it too and suchlike. I suppose it's very difficult for me to make an XI, but I could be a little in two minds on that issue given I don't feel especially impressed with 1910s footage, but otherwise re: more recent times am less inclined than you to say modern is better automatically. I guess I wouldn't change much from the combined results XI you showed if I made an attempt (but how to really say I wouldn't think Planicka can go in over Zamora or Pesek can go into the halfback line etc?). Maybe for the forward line I could be tempted (as sometimes could happen in select XI games like with Nejedly being placed as LW in the 1937 game) to put a player out of his main position; perhaps Sindelar to left wing, allowing a middle 3 of Bican, Piola and Meazza (potentially having Meazza behind the other two as alternative option but otherwise lined up like that I guess with Piola as WM CF, even if then yeah maybe reverting to how the combined results XI inside forward set up could be best I guess, as I do think it seems evident Moreno was a star in the 1930s and actually, like Matthews, a better scorer at that point compared to later). Otherwise Orsi, or Puc (who I'd have an inkling could be a good middle option between skilled creator Orsi and direct scoring asset Bastin) at LW, and Meazza and Sindelar as inside forwards behind Piola perhaps. You could have gathered that pretty much from my own table I guess anyway though, expecting indeed that I'd leave Sarosi as centre half (although in WM it'd be more centre back if he stayed as the number 5; with Andrade at a kind of RWB-like right half and Nasazzi as older fashioned sweeper-like RB then he could stay as midfield-based CH I guess though, even if Hapgood and/or Orth could then seem a bit more questionable if we're wanting full suitability for position/role I guess....)
For the 1913 Cup final, I think I commented the youtube video some time ago precisely about Buchan's fine defensive action lol. Proof that the wheel is not invented every week like today's marketing tries to push. It's still the same old wheel. If anything, today some try to sell square wheels as awe-inspiring innovations but that's another story. I think the switch to kick and rush happened in England somewhere around the 1910s, other than in the 1950s due to a famous and naive study considered as the "first scientific analysis on football ever made". Before that, the textbook exponents of the "passing game", taught by the Scots and especially Queen's Part and Renton, had been Preston North End 1885-91 and Aston Villa thereafter. The Corinthians maintained old style soloism combined with that. Pozzo in the 30s was very critical of the turn taken by English football, which he attributed to the excessive fear of relegation from the First division for economic reasons, and therefore to the prevalence of defensive, physical play. He complained that the English used to be artists of the game before WWI, and had become very mechanical in their play. Pozzo had lived in England between 1906 and 1908, and was a football fanatic travelling every saturday to watch games. He was a fan of Newcastle and especially of Man Utd, and his idols were Charlie Roberts and Billy Meredith. He had become friends with Bloomer as well as with FA's head Frederick Wall and others. Most likely that was a better time than the 1920s which were awful for England in terms of results. He also didn't hide his disliking of the WM, as killer of technical and creative play. But he was not alone. Since you're English, you may know of the chant "Boring boring Arsenal" used to mock the Gunners. Well that chant was born precisely to address the Arsenal team in the 30s. But in general, the English play was not held in great consideration from an aesthetics standpoint, and the comparison was made with a sort of heavy "muscle car" that had reached its full potential but couldn't be further developed, versus the continental, and specifically the Italian team, compared to lighter but quicker and more maneuverable race cars. What lacked the English was the humbleness to take action and change their ways, which would only happen after being submerged by 13 Hungarian goals in 1953-54. In my opinion, the outcome of England's participation in a WC wouldn't have been much different from that of 1950, save for the additional penalty suffered from the sea trip to Brazil. Football was evolving and they didn't notice. The 1936 match vs Hungary is textbook for various reasons. On one hand, it shows how the English loved these games where continental teams came, played pretty football, and lost. Maybe the press even made a quick complain about them not playing pretty as they used to be, just to underline that they could win even better, while sounding magnanimous to the losers. Less content they were when their opponents put some grit too and gave back some tackle, like Italy did. And actually shot at goal instead than trying to unsuccessfully enter in goal with the ball. In fact, the Italian forwards, mainly Meazza, were considered as the best shooters England ever faced and far more dangerous than the Austrians, which failed precisely in that department and so did Hungary in 1936. And Italy's 2 goals as the best of the match and among the best ever scored against England. On the Hungarian side, that match shows another thing: the lack of an effective center forward was pointed out by the English press as the main reason for the result, Cseh being insufficient. In fact Sarosi played at center half, and his playmaking was highly praised. But looking at the score from another side: Ted Drake scored 4 goals in 5 games for England. One against Italy in 1934, with the center half out of order and therefore no direct marker. Three against Hungary in 1936, with Sarosi as a theoretical direct marker. When your team suffers 6 goals, and your man scores 3, a question is raised. Pozzo had his Sarosi: Fulvio Bernardini, famous in Italy for being the player who "played too well for being called in the national team". That's the reason Pozzo gave him when he told him he wouldn't call him. It's rumored that Bernardini punched him in the face after that. Actually Bernardini was an ever present before Pozzo took charge in 1930. But Pozzo wanted a more defensive and marking center half, equipped with a good long pass. Ferraris IV, Monti, Andreolo. Monti himself complained of being requested to play too defensively. But no team ever scored 6 goals and no center forward ever scored 3 against Italy. You have to be humble and sacrifice something, and be able to vary your play, if you want to win. If you just want to play pretty, you can forget to mark your man (even in a zone system as the Pyramid and Metodo were) as the Hungarian half backs did, including Sarosi. If we take a look at Hungary's results in the 30s and 40s there's even more glamorous examples. That's why the greatest are those who win. I attach Zsengeller's career resume as a final point. He was the best Hungarian player after Sarosi. He came to play for my team, Roma, with great expectations, albeit a little aged. My dad actually saw him as a child. Take a look at his goal tally in Roma, compared to that in Hungary and later on in Colombia. To reach the same goal tally (18) as in his last season in Hungary, he had to play in the Italian third division at Anconitana, after leaving Roma and before moving to Colombia (he had fled Hungary due to communism taking over the country, as did Sarosi). And that was a less strong Italian league than that of the 30s, with no oriundi too due to the recent war. Context is everything and categories exist. The same applies to international competitions, and of course to professionalism vs amateurism.
In Brazil, before becoming world champions in 1958, some sports journalists argued that Brazilian football evolved when it stopped copying the English school and created its own style. Some also preferred the Scottish school of more elaborate passing. I read some praise for players like Alex James and Billy Steel.
Nice little info about Foster. Not a player I know much about except he played inside right for Corinthian in three Sheriff of London games (1900–1902). For England I see he played both on left and right side. His last game for England was also 1902, so maybe left the game aged 24. A good dribbler for his time, then, but level in early 1900s likely even lower than that 1912 Olympics- or 1913 FA Cup Final – no war or something like that in between, so don't see any reason to doubt that for me. Yeah, having both Sárosi and Orth as half-backs seem a bit unbalanced with a 2-3-5, but maybe going for a solution described below could work better – with J. Andrade doing the role of his nephew V. Andrade. So actually: Zamora – Andrade, Nasazzi, Hapgood – Sárosi, Orth – forward line (many possibilities with the inside trio of the line – Meazza going a bit deeper would be reasonable I think at least). I guess Hugo Meisl would agree taking Bastin over Orsi, btw. Nerz too possibly, although he selected Orsi as best (but without considering British players). And Glanville (ranked Orsi 70th, Bastin 19th). I thought this article mostly about best pre-war players/XIs was interesting, which I randomly came across. Well researched by the author, but seem like he is a bit short on real knowledge, if you ask me, based on some sentences and names wrongly written etc. https://90soccer.com/the-superiority-of-british-soccer-1863-1940-and-the-evolution-of-the-game/ The Kicker/Nerz section he might have got from this forum actually. The sentence "Nerz was a great admirer of British soccer but he did not include British players in his series. The reason? He believed the best British players would by default be ranked as the world’s best in any position and thus he left them out of the series." is very similar to what Gregoriak wrote back in 2018: --------------------- Yeah, true, British football in general – and also 1940s you could say – England really crushed Scotland in some of those war-time matches. England beat Rest of Europe 3–0 in late October 1938, and some weeks later Norway 4–0, who had de facto beaten World Champions Italy some months earlier. Also you have Scotland crushing Czechoslovakia 5–0 in Dec. 1937 of notable results. Sure, England had some bad results too in 1938, losing to Switzerland 1–2 and Yugoslavia [1939] 1–2 away (+ 2–4 against Wales, and 0–1 home to Scotland). But playing away from home is more difficult of course – I would think if it was two-legged ties England would probably turn it around and win on aggregate at home. Against Yugoslavia Hapgood got badly injured after 15 minutes too, and Switzerland had Rappan as coach – maybe the cleverest pre-war tactician. But worth to mention it's not England's results in 1930s on its own that make my team so English dominated. Male, Hapgood & Bastin important pieces in the legendary Arsenal team. Matthews is Matthews – and Cullis, Lawton & Mercer 'late arrivals', just barely making it. Swift did not, he stood out more after war started. Overall, whole career, I would rank Swift ahead of Olivieri, I think. Turek too maybe. Obdulio Varela would have taken Shankly's place based on whole careers, and Fritz Walter overtaking Šindelář. Bican's case would have been strengthed, so maybe I would have chosen him over Lawton despite aerial advantage. Gunnar Gren would have been a possible option to Mercer, and probably certain change if it had been Gren's normal position. Going for more modern players seem very logical for me here, although it usually does anyway for me. The game seem to have improved rapidly after WWI – we went from 1913 FA Cup final and it's players, to players like James, Meazza, Šindelář & Matthews in 10–20 years. "Best of all-time' or 'best of last 20 years' XI" My best XI ever have been for many years now: Buffon – D. Alves, Terry, Ramos, Maldini – Xavi, Zidane – Maradona – Messi, Ronaldo, C. Ronaldo. Manager: Sir Alex Ferguson. But maybe Maldini is too outdated and should have been replaced. Maradona old but gold, though, I think. Maybe Suárez instead of Ronaldo; Suárez play very well with Messi – or maybe Mbappé is ready to take over, I have not taken the time to look into it properly. Last 20 years XI, just made on the spot: Courtois – D. Alves, Terry, Ramos, Marcelo – Xavi, Casemiro, Iniesta – Messi, C. Ronaldo, Mbappé. Manager: Pep Guardiola. Manager for my pre-war XI, btw: Bill Struth.
I thought boring Arsenal was Graham's Arsenal. Arsenal 127 league goals in 42 games 1930–31 Then 90, 118, 75 (Chapman died halfway through season. 115 in 1934–35, then 78, 80, 77 and only 55 in 1938–39. Still, anyone having a complaint can go watch handball, or maybe basketball instead. "England's participation in a WC wouldn't have been much different from that of 1950" – Are you taking it for granted England would have been assigned an Italian referee in 1930s too and robbed? https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/all-world-cup-winners-classified.2129338/page-2#post-42036916 What do you mean 'sea trip to Brazil'? England flew. Not a CF, but Zischek scored a hattrick in Feb. 1934 when Austria won 4–2 in Turin. https://eu-football.info/_match.php?id=5797 What about Nyers?
You have a very good grasp on the beginnings of football I think mate in general that allows you to make informative contributions. I hadn't been aware that the chant "Boring Boring Arsenal" had been born in the 1930s, but I knew that they'd been called "Lucky Arsenal". Even in the 1980s's Charles Hughes had influence and advocated long-ball 'percentage' football (though not every English club used that style and my own Nottingham Forest certainly didn't, so in theory were using more the old Scottish style or it could be suggested somewhat mirroring more the push-and-run style of Tottenham at the start of the 50s and/or Hungarian 50s and/or Dutch 70s style perhaps...but basically mostly keeping the ball on the ground and playing constructively, and Liverpool, West Ham for example were more on that side of the fence also, Tottenham too for example mainly I'd say though with the longer passes of Hoddle being a feature obviously and using I suppose a few more longer defensive clearances than their 1950/51 team would have or possibly the 1960/61 team either for example). I think there may have been a point in the 1940s, especially when Matthews and Finney would both be available and in top form, when England could have been one of the best teams in the world (and with the forward line using some nice combinations, and Franklin apparently being a cultured centre back), so partially the reason for some 1950s results was I guess that they had gone past their sweet spot, though I know that as far as Italy is concerned the 0-4 game seems an example to an extent where things happen go in favour of one side more than the other, as can happen (though on that occasion there might have been a genuine advantage in the aspects leading to decisiveness for England also?) and then in 1949 apparently a depleted Italy did play a good game in England and were a bit unlucky not to get a better scoreline it seems I know (perhaps vs a non-optimal or past their best England already and/or with England overall having a relative off-day overall). I know that England were said to be unlucky vs Spain in 1950 though, and that Brazilian fans were supporting England more in that game apparently due to the flow of the match and I think the aspect of Spain committing more fouls too if I understand correctly. Then of course losing to USA was a bit strange. I of course agree with Hungary having shown England a more cohesive, skilled and imaginative playing style though, and yeah the 1950s Hungary team was also drawing comments about having more of an end shot, from Hidegkuti, Puskas, Bozsik etc, when they got near enough to goal, in contrast to some previous foreign teams. I think it can be a little bit the case where different football reporters can have different impressions and different preferences - the one that made those comments on England/Hungary 1936 was probably more an advocate of the older-style football with lots of link play and less long balls (though like I said I don't know if referring to sometime pre-1910s or just back to the 1920s that Billy Walker seemed to have fond memories of even if as you say England were not the best team in the world results wise anyway), and so genuinely had more appreciation for the Hungarian play. While the Scottish individual who called the Hungarian approach 'namby-pamby' was probably more an advocate for what he'd see as no-nonsense football (though he could be relating it more to shooting, so a point you'd partially agree on I guess). The impression I gain about the 1934 Italy game is that both sides played rough eventually, but I'm less clear on when and how it started (I have a feeling there could be different perceptions/versions) - it does seem England played better early and Italy, after resorting to concentrating more on playing football were the better in the 2nd half, even with 10 players. In 1933 and 1939 the games were cleaner and more friendly it seems - in the first one like I said it seems clear that Italy played the more cohesive game, while maybe that was somewhat the case in 1939 but for sure England apparently had a good period towards the end for example. On 1930s Hungary, I believe Sarosi did change his role during the game in 1936, and stopped looking after Drake - "The worthy doctor guarded Drake for most of the first half, but he reverted to an attacking role." Piola made the famous comment about Sarosi being the best centre half and centre forward of course (though as you'll gather I am tending to think for centre forward, particularly outright number 9 and/or for applicability to modern football, I'm leaning more now to Piola himself as CF actually at this point, though I'm kind of suspecting Sarosi may have passed his physical/overall prime before World Cup 1938 just about and we shouldn't forget the effective Ferencvaros attack vs Lazio with him and Toldi the year before - Lazio isn't Italy NT I know though). I would tend to think with Zsengeller it can be a mix of things - his peak being in 1930s and his date of birth being in 1915, Hungarian 1940s football having a lot of goals in general, Italian football becoming more defensively-minded somewhat already after the Torino disaster, and anyway having a slightly more defence-focused approach than Hungarian football at least, at club level too, going into the 1950s but already somewhat before I suppose.... The Hungarian defence in the 1950s did have a dedicated, robust, centre back, Lorant, although actually I'd say defence wasn't a big reason for their success of course (despite the 1954 Final, and yeah in theory a tighter defence can help vs the Germans and even vs the Uruguayans I guess). Probably their defensive unit from the 1960s with Matrai and Meszoly as middle pair was superior for that side of the game overall and also on the ball though (considering Bozsik midfielder, not part of the defensive unit in the 1950s team).
Yeah, to keep it more brief from my side this time: Agree on Andrade and Hapgood flanking Nasazzi seeming a feasible back 3 in effect (especially for those times). Not so sure on level increasing after Foster's time; I get the logic (plus the speed of the game increasing, even if that might just be linked to change in style?), but have doubts if there were more skilled ball players and a more constructive game style previously (but I wouldn't expect the general level to be something extremely impressive to modern eyes of the 2020s or the 1990s or the 1950s even, probably - but we can't really see enough to be sure exactly what to think, aside from that Bloomer could turn sharply and shoot nicely and stuff like that from brief clips!). I tend to think England 1940s peak likely better than 1930s. Not too surprised at your modern XIs (that has more recent slant than mine would, although partially surprisingly maybe not necessarily a more defensively solid midfield; but on topic anyway I suppose indeed it's not mega-recent at least in terms of the individuals chosen, if comparing to your pre-war one).
Re: Nyers though, yeah I think the switch to more defensive approach in Italy was gradual wasn't it (so maybe a stretch to apply that to Zsengeller on my side actually), and for sure Inter were a team with an attacking approach and a very good attacking unit (with Nyers as scoring left winger, somewhat akin to Bastin maybe I'd think?) at the beginning of the 1950s.
That is totally true and it's true for anyone in life isn't it? Learning from those better than you and implementing that on your unique individuality and characteristics. In fact, one of the secrets of Brazil 58 was sheer talent and fantasy coupled with a very european, if not italianist, tactical awareness. Manager Vicente Feola, originary from Naples, was heavily criticized for fielding the tactical winger Zagalo, who was able to help in defence and switch as inside left to reinforce the midfield, in place of the people's favorite Pepe, individualistic and with a reknowned shot. He was proven right: he learned from the 1950 WC, where left wing back Bigode (with a 25 year old Nilton Santos as his sub) was left alone against uruguayan right wing Ghiggia, who built Uruguay's first goal and personally scored the second. In the 1958 final, not only was the very dangerous, aggressive and scoring Swedish winger Hamrin kept at bay, but Nilton Santos even scored, profiting from the space opened by Zagalo. On the other hand, after the first unconvincing match Feola didn't hesitate to field 17 year old Pele and 24 y.o. Garrincha, both proving immediately decisive. Garrincha in particular shouldn't have even been there: rejected by the national team's psychology staff for being unable to function as part of a team and "with the brain development of a 12 year old"! The rest is history. Common sense wins. Intelligent people win. Intellectuals and professors smell their own farts. In fact Brazil stopped being great in the last decade (and more) when they started manufacturing export players for Europe, and exporting them immediately for cash. And the players themselves have no personality. I watch Brazilian league games sometimes and they're awful. It's as if they unlearned how to play their way, and are no good at playing the european way
I thought this too from Nerz could be worth highlighting (re: level likely increasing, and modern preference.) Yeah, Cullis, Lawton, Moreno & Mercer is pretty 'mega-recent' and in general the whole team (9 started in 30s, two in 20s). I think my last 20 years XI have a solid enough DM in Casemiro – good enough to win CL three years in a row. In my best ever XI there could be a vulnerability yeah, since I dropped a dedicated DM – partly why I choose Maldini over a Roberto Carlos or Marcelo too. Maldini also increases the set piece strength of the team. Flick would love it, though! And probably good enough to crush any opponent. Yeah, Inter were clearly very offensive in Nyers' years there – until 1952, when they hired Foni and won two scudetti in a row using a catenaccio tactic. In general 1949–1951 is high-scoring Serie A seasons (above 3 goals per match). From 1963 the goal average gets close to lowly 2.0 (from Herrera-era – Inter is clearly highest scoring team in 1964–65 though, and highest scoring until 1967). Until 1963 Serie A goal averages is comparable to English First Division post-1968 (a little above in most cases). Average was generally very low between 1963 and 1992 in Italy, with the lowest in 1972–73. 1978 to 1982 is the lowest period. Seasons with 2.0 average or lower: 1.87 in 1972–73 1.88 in 1979–80 1.90 in 1978–79 1.92 in 1980–81 1.93 in 1969–70 & 1986–87 1.95 in 1974–75 1.98 in 1981–82 2.00 in 1966–67 The English First Division usually around 2.5–2.6 average from 1968. Before this, except 1947–1950, the average is always above 3 per match in England.
Yeah, it could be possible Nerz is talking mainly about German, or otherwise European, football, I suppose though. Although he would agree possibly on 1990s 6th form students>1910s professionals indeed maybe with those thoughts (what few manage become basic skills etc)? Looking at some of my All-Time Draft XIs would show I can be inclined to Flick-ism in that respect (I like the De Jong/Pedri midfield pairing also, even if I guess it can contribute towards Barcelona being a bit more open and conceding goals even if with a terrific defence maybe it wouldn't be doing - in the end Barca got to the semi-finals and nearly beyond in the CL which can be looked at either way given the closeness of the semi-final too albeit against a team with less stars than they have - anyway off topic for this thread sorry lol!), and the Forest teams I used to enjoy as a kid arguably had no real defensive midfielder and a progressive midfield ethos, but yeah I was thinking a bit more about the 'All-Time' midfield with Xavi and Zidane (not to say it's invalid, but notable at least that it could be a bit less defence-orientated than my own in that respect I suppose, albeit I'd maybe lean towards my anchor player selection being Beckenbauer who wasn't really a true DM either). I was a bit lazy with my initial Zsengeller comments/ideas anyway I think, like I already suggested with the previous reply. Although I had read that the Torino air disaster had contributed in some way IIRC (losing several star players and a star team from an Italian generation) towards a more pragmatic set of ideas starting to be developed among Italian coaches, paving the way towards the adoption/creation of Catennacio later in the 1950s, into the 1960s. Falcao76 would have a more informed idea about that I guess though anyway. Both Milan clubs, enhanced by the foreign attacking stars, would be exceptions to any more defensive approach at the start of the 1950s anyway (as would Juventus I think, particularly playing under Sarosi himself with an approach not far removed from the Danubian one he knew as a player I believe), although Inter had some success after becoming a bit more cautious in their set-up with a different coach a few years later.